Eudaimonia :: essays research papers

The Term Eudaimonia Flourishing or Happiness?I have a number of very roughly-formulated things to say about eudaimonia in this essay. I hope that steering later on other specific aspects of NE will help me to pull all this together better. I think the problems my sources discuss are the products of schmaltzy readings all of those sources recognized this fact, and cleared up the confusions accordingly. At the level at which I have so far studied, the Nicomachean Ethics seems unproblematic, though demanding in the aesthesis that Aristotle seems to find so many of his connections too obvious to explain. I mention this by way of partial explanation of the naive way that I convey out the connections that Aristotle leaves for us to make on our own. A good place to start is with Ackrills brief characterization of eudaimonia eudaimonia "is doing intimately, not the result of doing well" (Ackrill, p. 13). Even though Irwin translates eudaimonia as happiness, I will use Coopers t ranslation flourishing instead. The reason for my choice comes mainly from Book X, where Aristotle tells us that eudaimonia is a abut and not a state (1176b5). It is easier to keep this in mind if the word flourishing is used, since happiness names a state, rather than a process, in English. Furthermore, there is popular prejudice, particularly among philosophers, against the idea that being happy is consistent with being virtuous. Hence, the use of the word happiness psychologically weights the case against the credibility of Aristotles doctrine, since he does think that eudaimonia is virtuous put to death (1176b5). His doctrine is at least rendered more worthy of consideration by such critics if they are first appeased by the more neutral term. Ackrill has different reasons for persuasion that happiness is not the proper translation. eudaimonia is the last-place end. While many things may be final ends, only eudaimonia is the most final end--the "one final good that all me n seek" is happiness.(Ackrill, p. 12). This is where he sees the difference what is true of happiness is not true of eudaimonia. Happiness may be renounced in advance of some other goal, but eudaimonia may not. In suffering in order to do the right thing, one sees ones life fall diddle of eudaimonia. But it is comfort that is renounced (Ackrill, p. 12). If this is true, then the idea of equating happiness with eudaimonia makes nonsense of Aristotles discussions of the virtues.